Gagliano v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1133 and 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h) for procedural ERISA violation could not create substantive remedy
• recognizing that in most instances, the appropriate remedy for an administrator’s procedural noncompliance “is to remand the matter to the plan administrator so that a ‘full and fair review’ can be accomplished”
• recognizing that in most instances, the appropriate remedy for an administrator’s procedural noncompliance “is to remand the matter to the plan administrator so that a ‘full and fair review’ can be accomplished”
• recognizing the importance of the ERISA appeal process for ensuring proper court review
• noting that in cases of a procedural ERISA violation, the “proper remedy [is] to remand to the plan administrator for the ‘full and fair review’ to which [the claimant] is entitled regarding the denial of benefits”
• finding a procedural violation of § 1133 when the administrator denied claim in the second termination letter on a different basis than it did in the first termination letter

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).